Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Kasia, post: 1246417, member: 31533&quot;]<img src="http://www.cointalk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Originally Posted by <b>bradarv90</b> <a href="http://www.cointalk.com/t10176-1011/#post1245964" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.cointalk.com/t10176-1011/#post1245964"><img src="http://www.cointalk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p>I did no roll searching today. However, I searched some of my pocket change and found a 1986D Washington quarter. Now I could have sworn this was a key date. Am I wrong?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.cointalk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Originally Posted by <b>WRSiegel</b> <a href="http://www.cointalk.com/t10176-1011/#post1246020" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.cointalk.com/t10176-1011/#post1246020"><img src="http://www.cointalk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p>They mad<b>e</b> a little over 500 million of them</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.cointalk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Originally Posted by <b>bradarv90</b> <a href="http://www.cointalk.com/t10176-1011/#post1245964" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.cointalk.com/t10176-1011/#post1245964"><img src="http://www.cointalk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p>Yeah so that&#039;s why I have trouble believing it&#039;s a key date</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It can&#039;t be because of the mintages of each (536 million P vs 361 million D) or even because there were only 2/3 as many D&#039;s as P&#039;s. The P&#039;s are not valued (or key) in MS 63 or MS 65. I would think if it was related to number minted only, then the very low proofs would be more valued than they are. Basically, I am thinking, though I have no validity on this idea to offer, that perhaps the D mint strikes were of such (low, comparatively) quality overall (for Circulation/Business Strikes) that even the strikes that came out were unable to support, for very long, a MS63 or MS65 designation. In other words, perhaps the way they were struck that year at that mint doesn&#039;t allow those coins to be &quot;handled&quot; without significant wear almost immediately. I would suppose if that is the reason, then maybe the Mount Hood D Mintmarked coins will have a premium in MS63 or MS65 or that the 2010 and 2011 Lincoln cents will follow suit, because most if not all of the ones I&#039;ve seen have such a low, indistinct looking profile compared to the previous coinage for those that I cannot seem to find much decent to save in rolls.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is only supposition on my part, but is predicated on the fact that if someone can determine (relatively) the percentage of coins minted that will be able to retain a MS 63 or MS65, and that that number will be low so there is a good chance that few people getting the coins will have that, then it would then command a premium.</p><p><br /></p><p>Please correct me if I am wrong or if someone has a different idea on why some of the 1980&#039;s quarters have a higher &quot;value&quot; in MS 65 condition than most of the series. I do look forward to hearing why.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in